#64 Provide a backwards compatibility layer

other (6)

xdoclet has by now become so popular, that you can be
sure to
annoy the hell out of your users unless you also
provide a backwards
compatibilty layer (being an Ant committer, I know what
I'm talking

For an example of the effects of your new module system see
<http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-06-25/> or
any og the
builds over the last weeks.

The red mx4j line as well as the ton of yellow lines
following it is all
yours 8-)

I simply added xdoclet.jmx.JMXDoclet extends
xdoclet.modules.jmx.JMXDoclet to the jmx module and it
worked - well
after removing the sourcepath and classpathref
attributes from
mx4j's build file.

Adding these classes is only a minor issue but will
make your users a whole
lot more happy.


  • Aslak Hellesřy

    Aslak Hellesřy - 2002-06-26

    Logged In: YES

    Very good idea Stefan, and thanks for the easy solution.

    I suggest we also let the constructors print out a deprecation
    message, encouraging people to modify their <taskdefs>

    I realise the annoyance factor, so this one gets max pri.


  • Aslak Hellesřy

    Aslak Hellesřy - 2002-06-26
    • priority: 5 --> 9
  • Aslak Hellesřy

    Aslak Hellesřy - 2002-06-26

    Logged In: YES

    We should also provide BWC on the classpath configuration
    in people's classpaths. The new module architecture requires
    people to put a lot of jars on their classpaths. Although this
    isn't difficult, it still breaks BWC, and we should try to avoid it.

    Making one big xdoclet.jar (and renaming the current
    xdoclet.jar to xdoclet-core.jar) would solve this problem, and I
    think this is just important as the other issue raised here.


  • Aslak Hellesřy

    Aslak Hellesřy - 2002-09-02

    Logged In: YES

    The BWC classes are in. Still need to make a big jar

  • Mathias Bogaert

    Mathias Bogaert - 2002-10-16
    • status: open --> closed-fixed

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

No, thanks